Disposed

Sandip v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2021WRIC/5728/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ in nature of mandamus preventing coercive recovery of a loan affected by the Covid-19 lockdown and directing equitable installment payment. The court disposed of the petition by observing it a proper application with a categorical undertaking to clear the dues within three months should be made to the bank.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to file an application giving categorical undertaking to clear outstanding amount within three months for sympathetic consideration by the Bank.

Sandip Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5728 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Sandip Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.K.Rao, Mukul Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Agrawal

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Supplementary Affidavit, filed today, be taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-bank.

¶7

The petitioner is seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to adopt any coercive method to realize the loan amount taken by the petitioner pursuant to recovery certificate dated 04.02.2020 issued by respondent nos.2 and 3 and also direct the respondents to give the statements of loan account and to take the loan amount of the petitioner in easy installments as may be fixed by this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has taken a loan for establishment of R.O. Water Unit and due to Covid 19 Pandemic and Lockdown, the petitioner suffered huge loss and could not deposit the requisite installment on due dates as the situation was beyond his control. As bona fide, even in great financial crisis, the petitioner has deposited Rs.30,000/- on 29.01.2020. In this backdrop, he submits that petitioner wants to deposit entire outstanding amount in case some breathing time is accorded to him.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for bank fairly submits that it is an endeavour of the bank to realise the outstanding amount as per agreement. In case, the petitioner gives categorical undertaking to deposit the outstanding amount alongwith interest, definitely the situation may be remedied by the Competent Authority.

¶10

In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the fact that on account of situation arisen in Covid-19 Pandemic and Lockdown, the unit set up by the petitioner stood closed, we proceed to observe that in case petitioner moves an appropriate application giving categorical undertaking to the bank that he will clear the outstanding amount within three

¶11

months period, the said application would be considered by the Competent Authority of the Bank sympathetically.

¶12

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶13

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶14

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.2.2021 A. Pandey

Sandip v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Yadav Vs Union of India and 7 Others

M/S Sri Ram Bala Ji Traders Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Green Bay Plot and Flat Buyers Welfare Association Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kamla Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Faisal Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Sismagic India and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others